January 9, 2014

Nine cases — including an oldie — on the February calendar

The Supreme Court today announced its February calendar.  It’s mostly a criminal calendar, but there are two civil cases, and one of those has been on the docket for quite some time.  The court granted review in that case — Loeffler v. Target Corporation — last decade, in September 2009.  The case was already old when we mentioned it nine months ago.  The case hasn’t been simply gathering dust the entire time, however; the court twice last year asked for supplemental briefing.  The latest round of extra briefs isn’t scheduled to be completed until the end of this month, the week before oral argument.

On February 4 and 5, at the newly renovated Stanley Mosk Library & Courts Building in Sacramento, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue(s) presented as stated on the court’s website):

Loeffler v. Target Corporation:  Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, section 1750 et seq.)
alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?

In April, the court requested supplemental briefing concerning whether and, if so, in what manner the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (see Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917, 931-937), appropriately may be invoked and applied in the present case, including whether the issue was preserved in the trial and appellate courts and whether article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution would be implicated by applying the doctrine.

Just three weeks ago, the court asked for briefing on these questions:  (1) May a cause of action be brought under the UCL (see Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) or CLRA (see Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) based on an allegation that a retailer misrepresented that it was collecting an amount as tax reimbursement when in fact the retailer failed to remit the amount to the Board of Equalization? (2) If so, do the allegations in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint state a cause of action under the UCL or CLRA on this theory, and, if not, should plaintiffs be afforded an opportunity to amend their complaint to state such causes of action?

Justice Kennard is recused.  Fourth District, Division Three (Santa Ana), Court of Appeal Justice Eileen Moore was appointed a pro tem justice before the first round of supplemental briefing and will hear the case in place of Justice Kennard.

Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach:  Are the names of police officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act?

In re Alonzo J.:  May a juvenile court accept a plea of no contest (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.778(e)) from a minor without the consent of the minor’s counsel?

People v. Moffett, consolidated with People v. Gutierrez: Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding for resentencing in light of Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 2455], although Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b), does not mandate a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a special circumstance murder?

People v. Hajek and Vo:  [This is an automatic appeal from an October 1995 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

People v. Arriaga:  1) Must a defendant obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to appeal the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for failure by the court or counsel to advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of the plea in accordance with Penal Code section 1016.5?  (2) Can the People overcome, by a preponderance of the evidence, the presumption that advisements were not given or must the presumption be overcome by clear and convincing evidence?

People v. Chism:  [This is an automatic appeal from an October 2001 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

People v. Suff:  [This is an automatic appeal from an October 1995 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

One Response to “Nine cases — including an oldie — on the February calendar”

  1. […] Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach:  Are the names of police officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act?  (Argument in this case was continued from the February calendar.) […]

Leave a Reply